“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Saturday, 10 June 2017

This is why we all love 'The Speccie'

Er, we do all love 'The Speccie', don't we? Well, yes, of course we do. Anyway, today over at The Coffee House, James Kirkup, a top man at The Telegraph, puts forward a defence of the most hated man in Britain, Nick Timothy, one of the two consigliore who ran Mrs. May's outer office and, according to some reports, ran her as well! Needless to say, given Thursday's train crash, innumerable missiles have been aimed at both of them but particularly at Mr. Timothy which have, in effect, destroyed their bunker and driven them out of office. Good riddance to bad rubbish, one might mutter along with almost all of the 'commentariat' - with the noble exception of Mr. Kirkup.

He concentrates his defence on behalf of Mr. Timothy because, as he freely admits, he is a personal friend of Ms. Fiona Hill, the other alleged 'perp', and he might be accused of bias. Now, what I gather from the 'prints' is that Mr. Timothy had an exceedingly abrasive personality and built up an increasing army of senior ministers, civil servants and top Tory operatives who all came to detest him. Mr. Kirkup confirms this but chooses to ignore it because, in the nature of such things, much of it is 'scuttlebutt'. Instead, he concentrates his defence on Mr. Timothy's policy-making, particularly in regard to the so-called 'dementia tax'. In essence, this was a policy that would use the capital contained in an elderly person's house to off-set the enormous costs of state-provided care.

I confess that I was somewhat startled by it and thought to myself that it was the political equivalent of a shit sandwich! There was also a policy suggestion that the heating allowance to pensioners should be means tested. This did not upset me because, whilst I am delighted when every winter the 'Memsahib' and I receive a cheque in the post from HMG, such a thing being highly unusual, the truth is that I am not poor enough to actually need it. Then there was the suggestion by Mr. Timothy that the triple bribe, ooops, sorry, the triple lock whereby state pensions would always rise by the highest of three different measures of the cost of living. Again, 'shlock-horror' all round, although I have felt for some time it was overly generous.

In other words, the fact is that the costs of what the state offers to pensioners is enormous - and growing! I am reminded of the sage words of advice offered decades ago by the late, great Auberon Waugh (in 'The Speccie', natch!) that it was the duty of all old people to stuff themselves full of fatty food, drink like fish, use dangerous drugs and indulge in as much unsafe sex as they can manage but, above and beyond all other things, die early!

So, in a sense, Mr. Timothy was simply reminding us all, perhaps rather too suddenly, that 'Corby-nomics', in which the state flies helicopters around dropping packages of money into every deserving household is simply not sustainable. Sooner or later, governments will have to face that problem and then take the buckets of offal that will be tipped on them by the voters.

"If we are going to cope with our ageing society and if we want to give security to people in old age while being fair to younger generations, we are going to need positive, active government that will deal with increased demand for social care, fund and improve our National Health Service and build more houses across the country."

And from whence comes the revenue for these efforts? Possibly helicopters, as there is no detailed plan for taxation - only a repeated promise to keep taxes as low as possible.

Is there an insurance product available in Britain called Long Term Care or "nursing home" insurance? That would be just for this type of elder need. My wife and I have owned such a policy for many years. We saw what can happen in our own family without such.

Perhaps you might try spending more time thinking.about policy and how to make it equitable. Why do something remarkably stupid like the dementia tax. It's an accounting nightmare which requires government resources to keep track of the expenditures for individuals. Furthermore we have to ask how this would work for the surviving spouse of an expired dementia patient who owed a bundle. Taxed on the spot and spouse forced out of their home? Or do you drop the hammer when they expire and accrue interest. Do individuals have a right to know what these death duties amount to? Can they challenge them? When you think about it for longer than thirty seconds the dementia tax is just stupid. You need to pay for your health care system and it needs to treat all people equitably. So what's wrong with estate taxes again?

When you've carried your Loved one out of a public place and onto a park bench, weeping, screaming "I don't know who I am anymore", crushed by her fellow citizens and authorities to the point of breakdown, you might, just might, understand where I am coming from.

Hopefully you'll never "need help sunshine". You seem to have plenty of sunshine in Oz, and maybe that helps.